6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and at the material time lived in the Moscow Region. He now lives in the United States of America.
7.  In 1977 the applicant started working for a construction and design agency, “Raduga” (GMKB “Raduga”), a State corporation that developed rocket and space devices. He signed an undertaking not to disclose classified information.
8.  On 16 May 1989 the applicant signed a new undertaking, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“I, [the applicant], undertake:
(a)  not to disclose information containing State and professional secrets that are entrusted to me or that I learn by virtue of my service (work) duties ...
...
(c)  not to visit embassies, missions, consulates or other representative offices of foreign States, and not to contact – directly or through others – foreigners without the consent of the management of the agency I work for or the relevant Soviet authorities ...
I have been informed of the prohibition on travel abroad, except as permitted by relevant laws and regulations ...”
9.  On 31 January 1994 the applicant signed a new undertaking which read as follows:
“I, [the applicant], on assuming my work duties at the Raduga design agency, undertake:
(a)  not to disclose information containing State and professional secrets entrusted to me or coming to my attention by virtue of my service (work) duties;
(b)  to abide by the applicable requirements laid down in the orders, instructions and regulations concerning the secrecy of the studies conducted, of which I have taken cognisance;
(c)  to notify the department of the enterprise responsible for secrecy arrangements or the competent authorities of any attempts by outsiders to obtain secret information from me;
(d)  to inform the human resources department in a comprehensive and timely fashion of any change in my personal circumstances; and to inform the department responsible for secrecy arrangements of any contacts with my relatives permanently living abroad or planning to take up permanent residence abroad, or of any non-professional contacts with foreigners.
In the event of my dismissal I undertake to abide strictly by requirements (a) and (c) above ...”
10.  On 20 August 1996 the applicant resigned.
11.  In early 1997 the applicant’s father, who lived in Germany, fell ill. Wishing to visit his father, the applicant applied to the Passports and Visas Service of the Department of the Interior of Dubna for a travel passport, the identity document which entitles Russian citizens to leave the country and travel abroad[1].
12.  On 17 March 1997 the Head of the Passports and Visas Service refused the applicant’s request. The entire text of the decision reads as follows:
“As there exist grounds for a temporary restriction on your right to leave the Russian Federation as set out in section 15 of the Law on the procedure for entering and leaving the Russian Federation, your application for a travel passport has been declined until 2001 further to a recommendation by the Raduga design agency of 20 February 1997 (registration number 6/209/23324).”
13.  The applicant contested the refusal before the Inter-agency Commission for the examination of Russian citizens’ complaints in connection with restrictions on their right to leave the Russian Federation (“the Commission”). On 24 February 1998 the Commission informed the applicant that it had unanimously upheld the imposition of a five-year restriction. The letter did not indicate the reasons for the decision.
14.  The applicant appealed against the decision of the Commission to the Moscow City Court.
15.  On 24 September 1999 the Moscow City Court gave judgment. It found that on 22 April 1977, 16 May 1989 and 31 January 1994 the applicant had signed undertakings not to disclose State secrets; the 1989 undertaking also contained a clause restricting the applicant’s right to leave the country. Having examined a report on the applicant’s knowledge of State secrets of 20 February 1997, drawn up by the applicant’s former employer and confirmed by the Aviation and Space Industry Department and the State Secrets Protection Department of the Ministry of Economy at the request of the Passports and Visas Service, the court found as follows:
“According to the report ... [the applicant] in his work used workbooks bearing inventory nos. 5301 and 4447 that contained extracts from top secret documents (nos. ...). In respect of some inventory numbers, requests were sent to the design enterprises [in order] to verify whether the information contained therein was still sensitive. However, no response was received. Moreover, the Court questioned a witness, Mr K., the Deputy General Director responsible for the regime and for security at the Raduga agency, who confirmed that the information contained in the documents that had been drawn up in the Raduga agency had retained its top secret classification and was still sensitive ... As the witness Mr K. clarified to the Court, there are no grounds for changing the secrecy classification of this information ...”
On these grounds the court determined that the restriction on the applicant’s right to leave the Russian Federation until 14 August 2001 was lawful and justified.
16.  On 9 November 1999 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the City Court’s judgment, finding that it had been properly justified and reasoned.
17.  The restriction on the applicant’s right to leave the country expired on 14 August 2001.
18.  On 25 October 2001 the applicant was issued with a travel passport and subsequently took up residence in the United States of America.